|
American citizens can now register online to vote at register.com
December 2001
Posted December 19, 2001
Charles Krauthammer - The difference between calm deliberation and fearful handwringing: December 24, 2001 Issue -
According to Mr. Krauthammer, there is no difference between introspection and intimidation. Writing of the period immediately following the 9-11 attacks, he critically dismisses the appropriate questions many raised:
"Intimidation was pervasive during the initial hand-wringing period. What have we done to inspire such rage? What can we do?"
To his way of thinking, it was entirely inappropriate for us to ask what role the U.S. played in the creation of bin Laden's holy war against us:
"The feeling that we might be responsible for the hatred directed against us suggested that we should perhaps seek to assuage and placate."
For him, there is only one appropriate response:
"There is no assuaging those who see your very existence as a denial of the faith and an affront to God. There is no placating those who offer you the choice of conversion or death. ... There is only war and victory."
Mr. Krauthammer has a reputation for being an intelligent man, so we might wonder why he would assume a "shoot first and ask questions later" posture at this juncture, unless it is to condemn reasonable people for being, well, reasonable.
On September 11th, within a few hours of the attacks, I wrote that "acts of terrorism on American soil will enrage, rather than terrify, Americans," and that "in my opinion, Osama bin Lauden is now a dead man." Note the lack of hand-wringing. Nor was I by any means alone. To the contrary, most commentators demanded blood. So what is Mr. Krauthammer thinking?
As time progressed, I, and many far better known commentators, did point out the role the U.S. played in the creation of Al-Qaida and the American policies which led directly to the death of hundreds of thousands of children in the middle east. But we also observed that, while it behooved us to understand why these people did these terrible deeds and our role in creating the conditions that led to 9-11, "destroying Al-Qaida and Usama bin Laden is no more about retaliation and revenge than destroying a mad dog."
In other words, take appropriate measures to eradicate the threat to our safety and world peace both now and in the future.
What of Mr. Krauthammer's hand-wringing? Beyond a very much in the minority cadre of intimidated ivory tower types, it was virtually non-existent. But there were a lot of very reasonable people wondering how we contributed to this mess and what, being the reasonable people we are, we should do after we skin bin Laden alive and toast his gonads over an open fire.
To these reasonable ruminations, Mr. Krauthammer responds with such a contradictory comment about events historical that we must wonder how much of it was for show:
"The psychological effect of our stunning victory in Afghanistan is already evident. We see the beginning of self-reflection in the Arab press, asking ... how a great religion like Islam could have harbored a malignant strain that would rejoice in the death of 3,000 innocents. It is the kind of questioning that Europeans engaged in after World War II (asking how Fascism and Nazism could have been bred in the bosom of European Christianity) but that was sadly lacking in the Islamic world. Until now."
He correctly notes that, after the American victories, the Arab community is now reflecting on the role Islam played in creating this mess. He correctly notes that, after World War II, Christians pondered a similar question. Yet, somehow between these two perfectly accurate observations he ignores that, in both instances, the self-reflection came after, not before the victories, and implies from this that the Muslim community is inferior.
I've heard better logic from half drunk bigots bleating in their beer about women's supposed inferiority to men.
Moreover, we should also wonder why such an intelligent and well-informed man would approve the war against Afghanistan when it's far more likely bin Laden is comfortably ensconced in Saudi Arabia.
Anybody wonder why bin Laden was laughing with such giddy delight in the most recent and infamous of his videos? Anybody wonder why the sound of bombs exploding was absent from the video? Could it be because while we are pounding Mohammed's mountains into mole hills looking for him, Usama and his kidney dialysis machine are snug and secure hundreds of miles away. (No, I don't have connections to Al-Qaida or an in with somebody in military intelligence. It's simply the most reasonable assumption given the facts.)
Speaking of which, I've been deeply puzzled by our government's position on this. If they truly believe bin Laden is in Afghanistan, then we're in trouble deep. So I asked a friend in the Army Reserve if she could explain it to me.
"I believe," she said, "that when Bush said 'dead or alive,' he really meant it in his heart, but as a public figure he knows the worst thing we can do is make bin Laden into a martyr."
She went on to say our leaders have almost certainly been in contact with bin Laden, that they really do know where he is and are negotiating with him, but that most Americans would be outraged by anything less than a public stance that includes Usama's head on a pike.
Who can't understand that? We all want him dead. But the fact Bush is willing to work this war like a game of chess tells us he's far more the astute statesman than many of us, yours truly included, expected. Certainly, far more than Mr. Krauthammer, who, as a pundit, has the luxury of letting something other than reason dictate the kind of policy he would implement were he king:
"What must be decided is not who is right and wrong--one can never appease the grievances of the religious fanatic--but whose God is greater."
- TIME.
Posted December 14, 2001
Liz Michael - A totalitarian plot, or a total meltdown? December 11, 2001 -
A lot of people believe Bush & Co. were really behind the 9-11 attack. But the truth might be worse than the worry:
"The truth is that the American government is in near collapse."
Sounds far-fetched, but Ms. Michael points out totalitarian governments are in control, and asks if the CIA was really in control, wouldn't they have acted on the warning about the 9-11 attack? Wouldn't they have been prepared for the anthrax attack on the agency? And so on. Yes. But she does miss the mark on some issues:
"These people are not only afraid of foreign terrorists. These people are afraid of you and me. They are afraid of the press. They are afraid of the political activists. They are afraid of the pacifists. They are afraid of their own shadows. They are not in control of anything."
While the American government may not be in control, while it may be on the verge of collapse, and while it certainly is not, at this juncture, totalitarian, paranoia is, in fact, a characteristic of totalitarian regimes. The paranoia of politicians aside, the Bush administration could and should have done many things very differently:
"After September 11th, there could have been...a call for the whole people to be on alert, to become armed, to learn self-defense and battle techniques, and to train to do things like protect the bridges, the nuclear plants, the borders, the planes. That did not happen. We could have been told to prepare shelters against nuclear or biological attack. We could have been told to stock up on supplies, on first aid kits, and train in CPR and medical rescue techniques. To buy guns. To shore up our vehicles for potential emergency use or flight."
Back at the beginning of World War II, that's the kind of thing the men in D.C. told us to do. It was the manly thing to do. So, what did our heroic leaders call upon Americans to do? What did these men of courage and vision have to say following the attacks?
"What did George W. Bush ask us to do to save the country....They asked us to shop."
Okay, the manly American leader has been replaced by the well-behaved boy who seeks mommy's approval. Scary thought. But what about the PATRIOT Act? Isn't that totalitarian? Pretty much. But, civil rights infringements aside, does it actually doom the war on terrorism?
"The President and the Congress has basically just told every person concerned about liberty and freedom in America...to go to hell. In other words, they essentially told the real American patriots that they can bug off. Liberty and freedom is not important. Security is the prime directive. Sit down, shut up, wave your flag and do as you are told....They are living the warning of Benjamin Franklin, that those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. The tragedy for them is, that government will be a bigger target than ever now."
One of Ms. Michael's solutions is to "close the borders and revoke the visas and green cards of everyone having come into this country from a Muslim country." Even those whose countries are our allies. Closing the borders (as in slowing the influx of immigration) appeals to me, but kicking out all foreign Muslims smacks of religious persecution and is illegal. Nevertheless, she makes a good case:
"Because this third reason has barely been addressed, the agents who will continue to physically destroy America in future months and years, as well as kill millions, are already here, and will continue to be here."
Of course, the FBI has been rounding up Muslim visitors for questioning. The problem is, they're arresting and detaining these folks. It would make more sense to require these visitors to report to the local INS office and provide weekly or monthly reports on their activities. Deport those who don't comply. Her analysis of the situation, however, has led Ms. Michael to provide a list of things we, as Americans, can and should do:
"Develop disaster and rescue efforts that assume the government cannot act, and that you will have to do it yourself. ... Develop plans for defending vital services such as hospitals, power plants, water resources, and food. ... Resist the tyranny. ... Every single freedom loving patriot needs to stand for public office now. ... Homeschool your kids. ... Now is the time to make economic purchasing decisions based on needs and not on wants. ... Additionally, get mobile. Mobility may be the key to survival."
- Liz Michael.com.
Posted December 12, 2001
William E. Saracino - Republicans and other "left-wing wackos"! December 4, 2001 -
Evidently, William E. Saracino thinks Republicans are "left-wing wackos." Yes, it's true:
"And mention of local governments full of left-wing wackos brings us to the burg of Portland, Oregon. The police chief, acting on the advice of the city attorney, has refused to allow his officers to accede to the FBI's request to question foreign nationals in its jurisdiction."
What's this got to do with Republicans? During the 2000 general election, Gore won Oregon after all. And who do they think they are, anyway, putting state's rights over federal demands? What a bunch of left-wing wackos! They're guilty of, as Mr. Saracino put it, "sacrificing national security on the altar of left-wing ideology."
Just a few points: State's rights is a conservative issue. Certainly, Ronald Reagan believed this. So, if they're guilty of sacrificing national security, it's on the alter of right-wing ideology.
The state Mr. Saracino lambastes as a bastion of "left-wing wackos" is, if anything, nearer the opposite: Gore won Oregon by less than 1 percent, and Republicans there control both the House and Senate.
The real reason Mr. Saracino is calling Oregon Republicans "left-wing wackos" is because he was trying to use it to magnify the badness of a stupid ordinance real left-wing types on the other side of the country attempted to foist on their constituents:
"From Montgomery County, Maryland, came word that the County Council passed an ordinance to fine homeowners for smoking - in their own homes."
Mr. Saracino used the confrontation over state's rights in Oregon and the stupid ordinance in Maryland to make the idiotic assertion that "terrorists have rights, smokers don't":
"We don't care if terrorists roam free in our community, we won't let our local police help FBI investigations; but we will hunt you down in your own home and fine you if you engage in a private activity - smoking - we don't like."
The fact he evidently assumes all foreigners are terrorists aside, he makes a poor case for smokers' rights by calling fellow conservatives "left-wing wackos" for enforcing a conservative law. If anything, it suggests he is motivated less by logic than addiction.
- California Political Review.
Posted December 7, 2001
Men of God - Long time moral commentator and Christian author William J. Bennett calls upon Americans to "respond to (the 9-11) attacks and prevent future attacks." It's time to fight the evil, he says:
"We do this to protect our own citizens and our own way of life. We do this to protect the idea that good and evil exist and that man is capable of soaring to great heights and sinking to terrible lows. We do this, in the end, to prevent the world from becoming the prisoner of terrorists, their way of battle, their way of thinking, their way of life, their way of death." - William J. Bennett, "Faced with Evil on a Grand Scale, Nothing is Relative," LA Times October 1, 2001
Inspiring words full of truth, for he is a good Christian who speaks words with which Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon must surely agree: "I say from Jerusalem, our eternal capital forever, whomever chooses to kill us, will be hurt." - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, CBS News, Dec. 3, 2001
Stirring words full of faith, for he is a good Jew who speaks words with which Usama bin Landen must surely agree: "These events have divided the world into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of infidels." - Usama bin Laden, quoted in "The War Bin Laden Has Already Won," Guardian Unlimited, October 10, 2001
Powerful words, full of determination, for he is a good Muslim who, like Prime Minister Sharon and Dr. Bennett speaks words with which God must surely agree. And how might God answer them?
To Usama bin Laden, God might say: "And the servants of the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace." - Muhammad, The Holy Qur'an 25.63
To Prime Minister Sharon, God might say: "You shall not kill." - Moses, Exodus 20:13
And to Dr. Bennett, God might say: "I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:39
But perhaps God is not speaking. For if these truly were the Words of God, surely these men would hear, for all are, each in their own way, men of the one true God. And each being men of the same God, who can doubt or dispute that they would know His Words?
Posted December 5, 2001
Ron Paul - Are we targeting the wrong country? November 29, 2001 -
Why are we attacking Afghanistan when most of the people who carried out the 9-11 attack were from Saudi Arabia?
"The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame."
Ostensibly, the reason is because the Taliban supported and harbored al-Qaeda, but they're not the only ones:
"The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them."
Worse for the world and the American people, but best for a powerful few who require a protracted conflict against an enduring enemy to bend our national interest to their personal profit, beyond the shadowy al-Qaeda, we have no clear enemy target that can be eliminated anytime soon:
"Today our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and contradictory; however, the precise enemy and its location are not known by anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately targeted or vanquished. ... The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the 'mob' or some international criminal gang."
So why Afghanistan? Follow the money:
"It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. ... The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban 'target' remains suspect by many."
It's like a James Bond movie. The illusive criminal organization always survives, guaranteeing another episode. Unfortunately, American foreign policy guarantees that should we vanquish one enemy, another will emerge in its place, fueled by hatred for the nation that pays for oil with the blood of children:
"In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: 'We have heard that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq). Is the price worth it?' Albright's response was 'We think the price is worth it.' Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world!"
For decades, the United States has been the most powerful nation. Not a sleeping giant, but the center of a thriving economic empire. Now, our response to the 9-11 events may awaken a sleeping giant:
"The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a long-forgotten sleeping giant- Islamic fundamentalism."
This is precisely what bin Laden wants. An all out war in which the world sees the United States as an arrogant and greedy bully. So what should we do? What can we do?
"As members of Congress, we have a profound responsibility to mete out justice, provide security for our nation, and protect the liberties of all the people, without senselessly expanding the war at the urging of narrow political and economic special interests. The price is too high, and the danger too great. We must not lose our focus on the real target and inadvertently create new enemies for ourselves."
- Ron Paul - House of Representatives.
November 2001
Mark Baker - Afghan allies shooting Taliban prisoners? November 30, 2001 -
Reuters reports that America's Afghan allies are shooting their Taliban prisoners:
"Opposition forces battling Taliban resistance near the southern Afghan city of Kandahar are reported to have massacred up to 160 captured Taliban fighters in the presence of United States military personnel."
American military personnel attempted to intervene, but the Alliance commander said they had no choice because the Taliban soldiers insulted them:
"They replied with abuse, so we had no choice. We executed around 160 Taliban that were captured."
Sounds like a case of road rage. "But your Honor, he said 'neener-neener' so I had no choice but to defend my honor and run him off the road!" Swell. With allies like these, who needs bin Laden? He can retire secure in the knowledge one wrong word from an American diplomat is all that's necessary to set off another Jihad.
- Sydney Morning Herald.
Are we playing into bin Laden's hands? November 2, 2001 -
American forces and the Northern Alliance have the Taliban on the run. Their surrender is imminent. But how much of a victory is this?
"The 'network of networks' known as Al-Qaida has successfully laid a trap for the United States."
Anybody familiar with Frank Herbert's story, Dune, knows the strategy. Draw the enemy out of their stronghold onto your turf where you can force them to meet your demands by holding the most essential commodity in the world hostage. In Herbert's allegory, it works. Will it work for bin Laden? It could:
"Al-Qaida's aims are to make the Middle East 'ungovernable,' gain control of the petroleum production system in the region in the attempt to force withdrawal of U.S. presence in the region, or destroy the regional petroleum production system."
If we let that happen, everything will change. Before we walk into al-Qa'eda's trap, we should change the rules right now.
First: Slow down. Don't rush to make war against Iraq and the other nations in bin Laden's network until we have better intelligence.
Second: Take the initiative. Stop reacting to bin Laden, dancing to his tune, and take back the initiative. We can start by taking immediate and drastic measures to reduce our reliance on petroleum through conservation and by replacing petroleum powered technologies.
Conservation is simply prudent, and prudence is only conservative. Moreover, there are plenty of 21st century technologies just aching to replace the 19th century petroleum powered technologies. Now, while we still have time, is a good time to make the change. Tomorrow may be too late.
- Cryptome.
Bin Laden admits to crime: November 11, 2001 -
In a video intended to rally members of al-Qa'eda, Usama bin Laden boasted that his organization carried out the attacks of September 11th:
"The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country."
In the tape, bin Laden justifies this as a "balance of terror." He also claims to have nuclear weapons:
"If America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent."
It would appear the CIA's proxy in Pakistan trained him too well.
- Telegraph.
Patrick J. Buchanan - The Israeli lobby is strong, and Arafat's mandate is running out: November 20, 2001 -
Many believe the hunt for Usama bin Laden is about over. Maybe they're right. I hope so. But I doubt it. While the combined forces converge on Konduz, likely as not bin Laden, accompanied by a trusted few, is well removed from the action. Meanwhile, the struggle for peace on the Israeli front fares worse than ever:
"Real peace requires something close to what Barak offered Arafat: a Palestinian state with full sovereignty over Gaza, the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and the Islamic holy places. ... That is impossible now. Sharon not only distrusts Arafat, he detests him and rejects the Oslo formula of land-for-peace."
So what? Their politics are none of our business. Right? Unfortunately, it is. Since 1972, Israel has received "$100 billion in U.S. aid." Or "$20,000 for every Israeli." So, while America has pleaded with the Israelis and Palestinians for peace, we have subsidized Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. Ironically, all this money has bought no clout at all with Israel:
"When Israeli and U.S. policies clash, it is U.S. presidents who back down. ... Israel ignores U.S. pleas and demands, for it knows they are bluster and bluff, designed for Arab consumption."
Congress, for example, has already told Bush what he can do with his proposal for a brokered peace between Israel and the Palestinians:
"Secretary of State Powell received a letter, instigated by the Israeli lobby and signed by 89 U.S. senators, directing him not to interfere with Israel's crushing of the Palestinian uprising."
The consequences are clear. If Bush does nothing, we will continue to pay lip-service to peace in the Middle East while financing Israel's ongoing oppression of the Palestinians, and Bush can continue his war against terrorism on other fronts with little hope for ultimate success. Or he can commit political suicide by trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
More war, or political suicide? Bad choices either way. But there is a third option. It's risky, but George W. Bush may be just the man with enough balls to pull it off: flat out order Israel to make nice, and withdraw all support and impose economic and political sanctions until they do.
Some will doubtless accuse me of anti-Semitism for this. Ironic, given the hate mail I've received from white supremacists who accuse me of being a "Jew lover." Doubly ironic that anyone would accuse someone of hate for demanding peace. But that's exactly what many prominent groups do, twisting pleas for peace into hatred of Jews. How could they do that unless they believe Jews hate peace?
- World Net Daily.
Oil and Peace: November 18, 2001 -
Without our heavy reliance on oil from the Middle East, September 11, 2001, would have been just another day. Everybody knows this. So, what are we doing to reduce our reliance on oil?
"If ever there were a moment to connect the dots and lay the foundation for a rational long-term energy policy that lessens our dependence on oil, it is now ... But a timid Congress once again is backing away from this challenge."
Critics of alternative energy sources pretend the government does not subsidize oil-based technologies, yet that is precisely what sending troops to the Middle East and massive grants to Israel are, subsidies for oil-based technologies:
"In the effort to assure access to oil, the United States has entered into unsavory alliances, most notably in the Middle East. ... To get oil, we defile holy places in Saudi Arabia by stationing our troops in them, enraging the inhabitants. ... This strategy has high financial, political and environmental costs. ... Afghanistan is helping to make clear how costly a subsidy we pay for an oil-dependent economy."
We could take the attack on America as an opportunity to start a new economic boom spurred by replacing all our old gas guzzling vehicles and other old machinery with new technologies. If the price was competitive, millions of Americans would rush to do their patriotic duty by replacing their old cars with futuristic 21st century cars. Instead of embracing this challenge, corporate wimps whine about recession, fear of flying and the need for lay offs. And Congress?
"In the near term, conservation, with an emphasis on production of energy-efficient machines and vehicles, ought to be the highest priority. Yet Congress, ever the handmaiden of industry, stubbornly refuses to enact such obvious and technologically easy solutions as requiring that Detroit produce more fuel-efficient vehicles."
Ironically, we really don't need to force anything down Detroit's throat. Just provide the same subsidies to competing technologies (results with deadlines, not well-worded grant applications) and watch Detroit scramble to keep up.
"On Sept. 11, though, the real costs of our failed energy policy should have become more visible."
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Gestapo Nation? November 3, 2001 -
America is home to all kinds of kooks, curmudgeons, dreamers, schemers and weirdoes. But silly as many of them are, they, among others, are all part of what makes our country great. Or at least they used to be. Now, the official government view seems to be that anybody who has an opinion critical of the government is to be treated like a suspect:
"Nancy Oden is used to controversy. But Oden never expected to be hassled by National Guard troops at her hometown airport of Bangor, Maine on Thursday and barred from flying out of it."
Oden's crime? She co-authored a statement:
"The statement calls for universal health care, limitations on free trade, and a stop to 'U.S. military incursions' including the bombing of Afghanistan."
Ayn Rand once said that a hallmark difference between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was that you were not free to express honest political opinions in the U.S.S.R. From the looks of things, the same may soon be said of the U.S. of A.
- War Time Liberty.
More Gestapo Nation: November 15, 2001 -
President Bush issued an Executive Order which allows special military commissions to arrest non-citizens who are otherwise legally in the U.S. and put them on trial. That's old news. But it's not good news. According to Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch:
"Under this Executive Order, a defendant could be sentenced to death without a public trial, the presumption of innocence, a right to appeal, or even proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Most of us may shrug and say, "Well, this is war, and sometimes you just gotta do." Yes, that's true, in times of war we get scared and do stupid things. But how far will we let the stupidity go before it's too far and too late?
Will we wait until they come arrest your college room mate? Or all the people in localization testing at Microsoft? Will we wait until they come for you? Or do we have to lose our televisions, first?
- Human Rights News.
Bill Moyers - While American citizens mourn, American corporations maraud! October 16, 2001 -
Following September 11th, it would have been so easy for our president to go off the deep end, imprisoning all Moslem Americans, turning against all Arabian nations. Instead, he has responded with sober deliberation:
"President Bush has acted with commendable resolve and restraint."
But what President Bush and the rest of us see as a time for "Churchillian courage," America's mercenary corporations see as an opportunity:
"There are members of Congress who believe you should sacrifice in this time of crisis by paying for lobbyists' long lunches. ... And while we're at it, don't forget to eliminate the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted fifteen years ago to prevent corporations from taking so many credits and deductions that they owed little if any taxes. But don't just repeal their minimum tax; give those corporations a refund for all the minimum tax they have ever been assessed."
We are told we should be grateful to corporations for providing us with jobs, and that corporations shouldn't be taxed at all. Once, that argument made some sense. Back when profit margins were thin, CEOs lived like successful Americans rather than like kings, and wages were high, we were all part of the same community. But things change:
"Our business and political class ... declared class war twenty years ago and it was they who won. They're on top. ... To hide now behind the flag while ripping off a country in crisis fatally - fatally! -separates them from the common course of American life."
What's at stake is our freedom and democracy:
"Democracy wasn't cancelled on the 11th of September, but democracy won't survive if citizens turn into lemmings. ... If the mercenaries in Washington try to exploit the emergency and America's good faith to grab what they wouldn't get through open debate in peace time, the disloyalty will not be in our dissent but in our subservience. The greatest sedition would be our silence."
- Common Dreams News Center.
Patrick J. Buchanan - A new Independence Day: November 2, 2001 -
Immigration is a wonderful thing. America's government, it could be said, is by immigrants, of immigrants, and for immigrants. But, on September 11th, those among us who didn't understand that too much of a good thing is, well, too much, surely must know it now:
"(T)oday, we read interviews of strangers in our midst who tell reporters, 'The Americans had it coming!' Can we still say it was wise to remove all the locks and doors to our lovely home, so strangers could enter at will?"
We pride ourselves on our charity, and when we saw Muslims starving, we bombed Serbia in their defense. The result?
"(A)s America responds to a savage attack on herself, Islamic crowds from Palestine to Pakistan to Indonesia cheer for Osama bin Laden. No crowds cheer Uncle Sam. But were we not warned by our founding fathers - from Washington to Adams to Jefferson - to stay out of these damnable foreign wars?"
Sadly, we did bring this on ourselves. Not just by sponsoring the operations that created bin Laden, but by repudiating the hard won independence our founders fought and died to provide:
"(W)e threw aside all that as 'protectionism,' to embrace 'free trade' and the global economy as preached by 19th century utopians like Ricardo, Mill, Bastiat, Cobden and all the other idiot-savants - none of whom ever built a great nation, and whose ideas brought the British nation to ruin."
We must win this war. But then?
"But, then let us dismiss the overeducated, arrogant fools who made America as dependent and naked to her enemies as she has not been since 1812."
Not isolationism, as the arrogant elite denounce it, but the restoration of American independence.
- World Net Daily.
October 2001
Out of contrast - The future of America? October 15, 2001, issue - A recent Newsweek article provided some interesting historical perspective on bin Laden's Jihad, but with a biased view of America. One that ignores a few key facts:
"In an almost unthinkable reversal of a global pattern, almost every Arab country today is less free than it was 30 years ago. There are few countries in the world of which one can say that."
Key fact: America has the highest incarceration rate (number of people in prison or jail) of any industrialized nation. Compared to an economic backwater like Lebanon, the U.S. is a bastion of freedom and liberty. Compared to our peers, however, and even more significantly compared to where we were, with more blacks and men incarcerated than ever before, our nation has become "less free than it was 30 years ago."
"For all its flaws, out of the same desert Israel has created a functioning democracy, a modern society with an increasingly high-technology economy and thriving artistic and cultural life. Israel now has a per capita GDP that equals that of many Western countries."
Key fact: According to America's Pro-Israel Lobby, the U.S. will give Israel $2.76 billion in the fiscal year 2002. Although most of the money goes directly to the Israeli military, as every school child knows the military produces civilian jobs and military personnel spend money in the consumer market same as everybody else.
Key fact: In comparison, according to US Aid, an official web site of the federal government, in 1999 Israel received more than $1 billion while Afghanistan received just over $6 million in food. In the same year, Lebanon received $12.5 million. Egypt received nearly as much as Israel: $775 million. Could these figures have anything to do with why Israel and Egypt are relatively modern and generally friendly toward the US while Lebanon and Afghanistan and primitive and hostile?
However, this portion of the Newsweek article, by Fareed Zakaria, does make some excellent points, particularly about the rich oil sheiks:
"All that the rise of oil prices has done over three decades is to produce a new class of rich, superficially Western gulf Arabs, who travel the globe in luxury and are despised by the rest of the Arab world. ... Most Americans think that Arabs should be grateful for our role in the gulf war, for we saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Most Arabs think that we saved the Kuwaiti and Saudi royal families. Big difference."
Big difference, indeed, but not so different from America, where we are kept in relative poverty (remember: had the minimum wage risen at the same rate as profits during the past 30 years, it would be $13.02, not $5.15), while the wealthy few squabble over which political faction will run the nation, and with a similar outcome:
"Far from producing political progress, wealth has actually had some negative effects. It has enriched and empowered the gulf governments so that, like their Arab brethren, they, too, have become more repressive over time."
The American parallel is seen in the growth of the number of people in prison, the number living paycheck-to-paycheck (which puts the "be patriotic, keep spending" rhetoric in an interesting light), and the fact most households require two incomes just to get by where, 30 years ago, one sufficed. Which raises a somewhat frightening question: Is the Arabian present, which is "filled with frustrated, bitter and discontented young men," America's future? - Newsweek.
September 2001
Remember the Titans - Bill O'Reilly vs. Professor Robert Jensen: - "(The September 11th attack) was no more despicable as the massive acts of terrorism...that the U.S. government has committed...For more than five decades throughout the Third World, the United States has deliberately targeted civilians or engaged in violence so indiscriminate that there is no other way to understand it except as terrorism. And it has supported similar acts of terrorism by client states." - Robert Jensen, Houston Chrnonicle, September 14, 2001.
"What I want and I think what 90 percent of the American people want is they want a nation that's going to defend - 'defend' is the key word -- their citizenry. So when you kill 7,000 of us, then the nation has a responsibility to go over and get the people who did that." - Fox News - O'Reilly Factor, September 24, 2001.
Osama bin Laden: An All-American monster: September 14, 2001 - Starting with Jimmy Carter's administration, America created the network of terrorists who, earlier this month, gave us a taste of what we helped pay for:
"In 1988, with US knowledge, Bin Laden created Al Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells in countries spread across at least 26 countries...Washington turned a blind eye to Al-Qaeda, confident that it would not directly impinge on the US." - Jane's Defence Weekly.
The mundane still matters: October 8, 2001 issue - Angry people who think both that they know what it means to be truly oppressed and that this oppression gives them license to murder innocents have landed an awful blow. Stunned, we, who are the American giant, fell to one knee in shocked disbelief. But true to the American spirit we jumped right back up ready to muster every resource to do battle in a bloody and prolonged war to vanquish the Satanic peril.
As we do, however, we must remain mindful that the mundane still matters. Babies are still being born, wailing for food, pooping their diapers, and expecting us to pay the bills and make of life a hearth and home for them. Even in war, life is still business as usual.
Which brings us to something most of us would just as soon forget right now: the budget. Yes, even as Congress jumps to sign multi-billion dollar checks for whatever President Bush says we need to defend hearth and home (does anybody else see massive deficits in our future?), we still need to pay for those hearths and homes. And sometimes we even need to remind ourselves what those hearths and homes are for - people. Us, you, your best buddy, we, the Americans. So, the question is, how are we going to pay for these deficits? Ironically, the answer may not be to cut back in other places, but to spend more in the right places, as Robert B. Reich notes:
"If all the productive resources of an economy are to be utilized, it's sometimes necessary for the government to spend more than it takes in."
Which means what? Years ago, when I was bumping around Microsoft, Bill Gates (quoting Frank Gaudette) used to say, "Microsoft's employees are our greatest assets." Spend money on making the people more valuable, so the reasoning went, and the company will become more valuable.
As we spend billions, if not trillions, making ready for war, maybe we need to remind ourselves who we're going to war for, and that we still need to invest money at home, in America, on Americans, too. - American Prospect.
American made: September 18, 2001 - The United States spent $3 billion on the mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was part of that deal. A deal which came back to haunt us in a very big way:
"A blind, wounded giant is demanding retribution for attacks almost certainly carried out by the very Muslim groups it used to bring down the Soviet Union." - Sydney Morning Herald.
Courageous men, cowardly acts: Excerpted from the October 1, 2001, issue - There is a general misconception concerning the September 11th attacks and other acts of terrorism against Americans:
"Official policy has viewed the attacks as a sequence of discrete criminal incidents. Seeing terrorism primarily as a problem of law enforcement is a mistake..."
As long as we treat terrorists as cowardly criminals, rather than brave soldiers, we leave the nation or nations behind them free to continue their campaign against us. Until and unless we are willing to carry the fight against terrorism back to its source, there will be no end to the bloodshed.
"There is no need to know the precise identity of a perpetrator; in war, there are times when one strikes first and asks questions later. When an attack takes place, it could be reason to target any of those known to harbor terrorists. If the perpetrator is not precisely known, then punish those who are known to harbor terrorists. Go after the governments and organizations that support terrorism." - National Review.
Thousands brutally tortured and killed: September 15, 2001 - In the 1970s, the United States Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, masterminded a successful plot to assassinate President Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, and overthrow their government. Thousands of Chileans were brutally tortured and killed. We did it, we were behind it, just as we have been responsible for so much violence and bloodshed throughout the world.
As we answer the attack on America - and answer we must - we should keep this in mind: "we, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants." - Michael Moore.
Was CIA operative behind attacks? August 24, 1998 - Osama bin Laden is the prime suspect in the September 11th terrorist attacks. He's also a former CIA operative:
"At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback." - MSNBC.
George W. Bush addresses the nation: September 11, 2001 - "The search is underway for those behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorist who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
Awakening the American Giant: September 11, 2001 - The terrorist organization responsible for today's attacks would be well advised to claim no responsibility. Americans may have watched complacently while the US government committed many sins, but acts of terrorism on American soil will enrage, rather than terrify, Americans.
From personal experience I know how frustrating it can be dealing with the United States government. But while these acts are providing some with momentary feelings of satisfaction, ultimately they will only give the American government exactly what it wants: a politically plausible excuse to utterly destroy identified terrorist organizations, if not all anti-American groups.
Tactically, the terrorists' operation was a success. Strategically, however, it will almost certainly go down in history as one of the biggest blunders of the 21st century. In my opinion, Osama bin Lauden is now a dead man, whether he is ultimately revealed to have masterminded the attacks or not.
News links regarding terrorist attacks on World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon, death toll estimated at 50,000: September 11, 2001:
At 8:35AM East Cost Time, a hijacked plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Shortly thereafter, a 767 hijacked from Boston crashed into the other tower. Both towers have collapsed in flames. A 757 crashed into the Pentagon and a portion of that structure has now collapsed. A car bomb has now exploded near the State Department. All air traffic in the U.S. is being grounded and several major commercial and political buildings throughout the United States are being evacuated. A 747, evidently hijacked to target the capitol dome in D.C., crashed near Pittsburgh (we can only imagine the acts of heroism that entailed), and a flight is reported by the FAA as "missing." State capitol buildings are being closed. The New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ have been closed. The LA Airport and Disney World in Florida are being evacuated.
Marty Meehan - The lost Clinton legacy: September 5, 2001 - As a long-time critic of Bill Clinton, I would never apologize for the man. But it really is too bad his flaws got the best of him, because in many ways he was one of the most capable and effective administrators America has had. When he stepped into office, the Reagan-Bush Sr. economy was floundering: "In 1992, the US economy had ground to a halt. Ten million Americans were out of work, and the federal budget deficit had soared to nearly $300 billion." (The official unemployment number a month ago was 6.4 million [Dept. of Labor - Employment Situation Summary] compared to 5.9 million in 1999 [Table No. 643, Statistical Abstract of the United States 2000].)
Clinton raised taxes, cut the deficit and took various other measures: "The American economy proceeded to set a record for the longest economic expansion in history." Conservative pundits insisted it was all the result of Reaganomics, but after the first few years their claims carried so little credibility that had Clinton comported himself like a real leader, they would have sounded like hackneyed blowhards instead of moral leaders.
But he did what he did, and now his legacy is lost as the Bush Jr. administration picks up where daddy left off. "The result is that Congress returns from the summer recess to face dwindling government reserves, a lagging economy, and insufficient resources to invest in a Medicare prescription drug benefit, education, or even the president's vaunted national missile defense system."
Bush is not entirely to blame: the Fed waited too long before reducing interest rates, and globalism, favored as much by Clinton as by both Bush administrations, has undermined the economy by exporting wealth-creating jobs. But Bush's fiscal policies are going to make things worse for the American people. I don't say that because I disagree with him in principle, but because history has demonstrated tax rebates don't work.
It didn't work for President Ford in 1975, and there is no reason to believe it will work for Bush Jr., now. (See: Free money from the gov't.) - Boston Globe.
Bill O'Reilly - Condit will resign: August 31, 2001 - Rep. Gary Condit should go. "There's no question he has lost all credibility." Now it's time for him to go. But notice none of the wags are doing the difficult thing in what is surely a hard time for Chandra Levy's family to point a few fingers at the young woman who knowingly had an affair with a married man. No, never let Condit off the hook for his infidelity. He lied to his wife, then he lied to us. Go away, Gary. But, tragic as the consequences may turn out to be for her, we should not forget Ms. Levy's culpability in this sordid affair. Had she chosen to do the right thing rather than the liberated thing, we can only wonder how much better off she would be. - O'Reilly Factor.
August 2001
Gary North - Hate is free: July 31, 2001 - Lots of people want us to invest our time and efforts into their cause. Hate all the bad guys they hate. Problem is, there's more hate than time and effort. "Political mobilization is costly. Its assets must be allocated rationally. Assets should be concentrated on local and regional agencies that are an immediate threat to your liberty and your net worth." - Lew Rockwell.
July 2001
Jeff - Jacoby - Elected officials thwart American democracy: June 7, 2001 - Some state lawmakers are complaining that the Initiative process is running amok. "In the two-year political cycle that culminated on Election Day 2000...in the 24 states that permit laws to be passed at the ballot box...36 (Initiatives) were adopted." Compared to the more than 10,000 laws passed by the state legislatures in the 24 states that allow laws to be pass by the Initiative process, that's 36 too many, they say. "To stem this plague of democratic decision-making, they have taken to sabotaging it with onerous rules: They hike the number of signatures needed to qualify a measure for the ballot." Sometimes, they even ignore Initiates that meet every requirement and follow every rule. In 1992, for instance, the Massachusetts General Court ignored an Initiative to put a term-limits amendment on the ballot. "A ballot measure that wins the electorate's approval is likely to have been broadly publicized, vigorously debated, carefully analyzed, and widely discussed. If only the same could be said about all our laws."- Boston Globe.
Naomi Klein, an emerging world leader in the fight against globalization: July 2, 2001 - Opposition to the power of multi-national corporations has been diffuse and ineffective. "Until now, the anti-globalisation movement has been criticised for lacking specific focus. Politicians have been privately relieved that the protests seem to have been an end in themselves, that the challenge to their authority has run only as deep as the theatre on the streets." But now this may be changing. As Klein notes, "What is emerging is an activist model that mirrors the organic, decentralised, interlinked pathways of the Internet it is the Internet come to life" - Sydney Morning Herald.
J. Bottum & William Kristol - In opposition of cloning: July 2, 2001 - American opposition to human cloning is gathering tremendous political support. "About the horror of creating human beings by cloning, there is wide agreement among the American people-and in Congress as well." The basis for this opposition? "If we do not allow theology to inform our political decisions, if we do not allow philosophy, if we do not allow even politics, what remains?" In other words, their opposition rests on the assumption the body is the person. But isn't the claim that the body is the person a secular perspective? - Weekly Standard.
Hunger striker protests IRS:, July 3, 2001 - Bob Schulz began fasting in protest of the IRS. Schulz, who is the founder and chairman of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, says he will end his strike when the government answers their allegations. "Schulz and other members of the loosely tied 'tax-honesty movement' believe the 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified. The amendment made income taxes constitutional, and because of its improper implementation, says Schulz, Americans have been duped into believing a lie." - that they are required to pay income taxes." World Net Daily
Bush wants to run Canada, too?, June 30, 2001 - Maybe Bush is keeping his agenda a secret from American citizens, but Paul Cellucci, Bush's new U.S. ambassador to Canada, is more forthcoming. "Mr. Cellucci, the former governor of Massachusetts and a close friend of George W. Bush, the U.S. President, suggested the borders between Canada, the United States and Mexico be dismantled with the aim of achieving a more fully integrated economy." National Post
June 2001
Impact of globalization on farmers:, June 27, 2001 - The North American red raspberry industry faces extinction due to the influx of cheaper berries from Chile. "Besides looking for emergency funding, domestic berry growers are also seeking to have duties levied against Chilean raspberries, saying their South American farmers are getting illegal subsidies from their government and selling their produce for less than it costs to grow it." Olympian
Republicans value loyalty over leadership?, June 12, 2001 - Evidently, some Republicans believe loyalty is more important than leadership and that it is not okay for a Republican senator to vote their conscience. "Arizona Republicans are organizing for a recall election of Sen. John McCain because he has sided with Democrats on key issues and voted against President Bush´s tax cut." Washington Times
Myriam Marquez - 'Compassionate' message isn't working for Bushes:, June 6 2001 - During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush talked like a moderate. For that matter, so did Al Gore. After the election, however, President George W. Bush demonstrated just how much more integrity than Gore he has by proving most of what he said during the election was a lie. The cost to his presidency? "The candidate claimed to be humble, but in practice the president rode right over the Democrats and dissenting voices even though the Senate's Republican control was tenuous. Now his party has lost control of Senate committees and, with that loss, the power to set the agenda." Orlando Sentinel
May 2001
Senator James Jeffords' defection speech:, May 2001 - "I became a Republican not because I was born into the party, but because of the kind of fundamental principles that these and many Republicans stood for: moderation; tolerance; fiscal responsibility. ... We don't live in a parliamentary system, but it is only natural to expect that people like myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, will largely support the president's agenda. ... And yet, more and more, I find I cannot. ... In order to best represent my state of Vermont, my own conscience and principles I have stood for my whole life, I will leave the Republican Party and become an Independent." National Review
Republican leadership had plenty of warning:, May 27, 2001 - Although it may seem as though Senator Jeffords bolted out of the blue, there was plenty of warning. In fact, when asked how long he had been aware Jeffords was thinking of defecting, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott replied, "I think it was about 24 years ago." Boston Globe
Vermont Senator James M. Jeffords's statement:, May 24, 2001
Riots imminent in New York:, May 25, 2001 - New York State issued a warning that power blackouts could lead to rioting. "Public safety could be jeopardized, it says. Blackouts could lead to mass looting, stalled subways and elevators, vandalism and "social unrest," such as that seen during the 1977 city blackout, according to the regulation." New York Post
David A. Yeagley - What's Up With White Women?, May 18, 2001 - Like many white Americans, "Rachel" denounced her race as "nothing." Because the whites are self-destructing. Which is foolish. "I believe in my Comanche people. I know that someday we'll stand as equals before the white man, strong, prosperous and self-sufficient. But we won't get there by listening to empty praise from guilty white women. We'll get there by studying the white man's ways and learning to be strong as he is." FrontPage
Rogue Nation:, May 28, 2001 - The United States has been kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission and the UN international drug monitoring board. We're nice guys, why would they do that to us? "Our lawless exceptionalism is a deeply rooted, bipartisan policy that didn't begin with the Bush Administration. Under previous Presidents, Democratic and Republican, Washington denounced state-sponsored terrorism while reserving the right to bomb a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan or unleash a contra army on Nicaragua. It condemned Iraq for invading Kuwait while reserving the right to invade Panama or bomb Serbia on its own writ. ... The US international business community even opposes efforts to eliminate child labor." The Nation
Bill O'Reilly - The Clinton Legacy:, May 2001 - Clinton rose from humble beginnings to become the most powerful man in the world. Then he blew it. "We are all suffering right now because of Bill Clinton's presidency, and it has nothing to do with his moral failings. It has everything to do with his policy failings." During his final months in office, he turned from managing the economy to fund-raising, allowing Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to choke the economy, and his meddling in the middle east has made things worse. "The bad economic news was compounded by the fact that Mr. Clinton never had an energy policy and allowed the OPEC nations to cut oil production without challenge." WorldNetDaily
Charley Reese - The blood of every murdered Palestinian child is on American hands:, May 8, 2001 - Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said there "will be no permanent agreement with the Palestinians." Israel wants the territory and they want the Palestinians defeated and docile. "The key to peace in the Middle East is in Washington, not Jerusalem. It is our government that empowers the Israeli government to defy international law and human decency. The Israelis wouldn't last six months without American backing, and they know that." Orlando Sentinel
Michael Moore - Cut the crap:, May 1, 2001 - Bush has loosed the hounds of hell, and Ralph Nader is to blame for it, or so the Democrats would have us believe. "But, please, let's cut the crap and tell the truth: George W. Bush has done little more than CONTINUE the policies of the last eight years of the Clinton/Gore administration." From arsenic to abortion, from pollution to NAFTA, Bush is merely picking up where Clinton left off. The only real difference is, Bush does it out in the open while Clinton did it behind a cloud of concerned rhetoric. "So spare me all the hand wringing and indignant moralizing." Michael Moore.com
Fed's credit policy to blame for boom-bust cycle? April 19, 2001 - Loose credit policy effectively increases the supply of money which in the short run fuels consumption but in the long run undermines savings and the ability of consumers to pay. "It's this credit that fuelled the boom, triggered hi-tech stock mania, blew the current account out and encouraged reckless borrowing." As unemployment increases and income decreases, credit spending will slow and the economic equilibrium will be restored. In the meantime, however, many will feel the pinch. - New Australian.
April 2001
China's bullies owe U.S. an apology: April 14, 2001 - For the past several months, Chinese fighter pilots have been aggressively harassing U.S. reconnaissance planes. According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, "We had every right to be flying where we were flying. They have every right to come up and observe our flight. What one does not have the right to do, and nor do I think it was anyone's intention, is to fly into another aircraft. The F-8 pilot clearly put at risk the lives of 24 Americans. ... The U.S. plane had been on automatic pilot, flying absolutely straight and level, not veering as Chinese accounts had alleged." - China Lateline.
Joseph Farah - U.S. officials caved in to the demands of the extortionist tyrants in Beijing: April 5, 2001 - Bush told the Chinese tyrants he's a president who backs down to bullies, inviting them to do worse next time. And there will be a next time. "I'm sick of seeing the U.S. bomb people in Yugoslavia who are no threat to us. ... But I'm sicker still of seeing us act like cowards in the face of naked aggression against our country and our people -- just because those attacking are bigger and tougher." - World Net Daily.
Clarence Page - Still wanna Ralph? April 5, 2001 - Naderites, whose votes could have made the difference in the election, said there was no real difference between Bush and Gore. But maybe they will see a difference, now: "Bush has slapped not only the Greens but a lot of other political colors in the face by scrapping new regulations to reduce cancer-causing arsenic in drinking water. ... He also has dumped regulations to prevent toxic byproducts of surface mining from polluting waterways." And so on. - Chicago Tribune.
Chinese looking silly: April 5, 2001 - Following the mid-air collision between the American EP-3 surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter piloted by Wang Wei, the Chinese government is demanding that the U.S. admits the Chinese are such incompetent jet fighter pilots that they are unable to avoid being rammed by a lumbering old propeller driven American plane. Thus far, Secretary of State Colin Powell has declined. - National Post.
March 2001
Gary Kamiya - In the Age of Bush, silence is golden: March 30, 2001 - Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer has announced the president will no longer hold press conferences. Which, when you stop to think about it, is good. In place of Clinton's embarrassing peccadilloes and prevarications, we now have Bush's ignorance. "What America, or at least five old geezers in black robes, wanted was a genial, figurehead-type CEO who is incapable of defending or even explaining the decisions made by his corporate masters on the board of directors, but who can make ignorance seem charming." - Salon.com.
US backflip opens rift with Europe: March 30, 2001 - Europe's powerful environmental movement and many European governments are outraged by President Bush's decision to back out of the Kyoto global warming treaty. But as Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer explained, "The concern is that most of the world is exempt from the treaty, and the treaty as it currently is written is not in the economic interests of the United States because of the huge costs involved that are disproportionate to the benefits." - Sydney Morning Herald.
Full spectrum dominance: March 25, 2001 - During his campaign, Bush II promised his foreign policy would not be arrogant; once elected, however, he immediately announced that "the United States would move swiftly to deploy a national missile defense system." And should any of our allies refuse our missiles? What of Bush's promise, then? - Boston Globe.
WTO is unaccountable for the power it wields: March 22, 2001 - "The party of national sovereignty had ceded its powers to an unelected body far more powerful and less accountable than the bogeyman of Europe, without a flicker of concern for the government's mandate." - Guardian.
Bush's faith-based initiative shows bias: March 21, 2001 - "Despite decades of effective work in black communities throughout this country, the Nation of Islam was not invited to participate in President Bush's faith-based initiative." - Boston Globe.
The perfect spy: March 18, 2001 - Spurned by British Intelligence, Fritz Kolbe, an administrator in the Nazi regime whose "job was to screen and reroute top secret cables from Hitler's generals and diplomats around the world," provided "a stunning array of Nazi intelligence" to the OSS (American Office of Strategic Services). Here is a story as worthy of a Hollywood production as Oskar Shindler's. - Sunday Times.
WTO's Moore sees Chinese membership by November: March 18, 2001 - "But he warned that if the WTO's 140 members stuck to their previous positions, the meeting in Qatar would have the same result as the now infamous Seattle ministerial meeting in 1999, which collapsed amid violent anti-globalisation street protests." - LateLine.
Bush breaks campaign pledge: March 14, 2001 - On March 13, 2001, President Bush announced his administration will not regulate power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide as a pollutant: "I do not believe ... that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a `pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." - Boston Globe.
February 2001
Text of President Bush's Speech to Congress on His Budget Plan - New York Times.
Gore falls short: Early results of studies conducted by several news organizations suggest that even with a full recount Bush still would have won Florida by a landslide of 140 votes. - International Herald Tribune.
State's rights supreme ... sometimes: By the usual 5 to 4 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that state employees cannot use the Americans With Disabilities Act to sue their states for damages. Please forgive me for noting that the same five justices had no problem overriding states' rights in the case of Bush v. Gore. - Independent.
The First Grifters: Clinton saw the pardon power as just another perk of the office. - Wall Street Journal.
Britain ought not to offer a fig-leaf for Bush's Middle East forays: The US and UK governments cite UN Security Council resolution 688 as the basis for the air exclusion sectors over Baghdad. In fact, as France, China and Russia have consistently pointed out, the resolution gives no provision for such zones. - Independent.
The First Grifters: Clinton saw the pardon power as just another perk of the office. - Wall Street Journal.
Billionaire Buffett benefits from Death Tax: The death tax contributed to Warren Buffett's success. Buffett heads a company that buys up family businesses, at least some of which are sold in anticipation of the 55 percent estate tax. - Detroit News.
States support Death Tax: Who cares about bereaved families, states want the money to pay for their programs. - Dallas News.
"Fingerprint" everybody: The scientist who discovered genetic fingerprinting wants everybody to be DNA tested to try to combat serious crime - Telegraph.
A vile legacy: Marc Rich's overlooked role in the looting of the disintegrating Soviet Union - Yahoo Daily News.
The pain, the agony, the torment! Hillary victimized by Pardongate - New York Post.
Happy Valentine's Day, Jesse: The big story is not Jackson's infidelity. It is his misuse of tax-exempt funds - NewsMax.
Linda Tripp: Hillary Directed Waco, Bill Abused Monica - NewsMax.
Sharp change in intervention policy: Bush takes a new course on global financial crisis - International Herald Tribune.
Gore wins by 23,000: At least, that's what the Miami Herald says - Miami Herald.
Sick in Seattle: "They make me want to vomit," Mike Moore, head of the WTO said, describing his reaction to the protesters in Seattle - Independent.
Global American Empire? Bush intends to put anti-missile shield around the world, creating a global defense system - International Herald Tribune.
The $8 Million Woman: Newt write a book? How dare he! Hillary write a book? How wonderful! - Rightgrrl.com.
United States of Europe? EU social security number in the works - Independent.
Swindler General? Slade Gorton still hopes to make it into W's DOJ - Seattle Weekly.
Clinton and his Consequences - Atlantic Monthly.
Are Bush's community-minded words mere drapery? Communitarians fear community values a ploy to legislate religion - Washington Post.
Qatar to host WTO: Globalism's iron fist - The Guardian.
January 2001
Big Guns Assemble as Recount Begins: Part 2 - Washington Post.
Two Candidates Caught a Whiff of Defeat - and Then Rapidly Mobilized for a Recount War: Part 1 - Washington Post.
Florida 'recounts' make Gore winner - The Guardian.
People united for swindles and hucksterism: Jackson's mistress probably needs the money more: Having had her affair with a black liberal, she cannot expect lucrative offers from smut magazines to pose nude - Town Hall.
Bill Would Let Fairfax Limit Sleep to Bedrooms: Fall asleep watching TV, go to jail? - Washington Post.
Cathy Young: Don't confuse the electoral vote map with the territory - Reason.
Elections: Fraud found in Florida, but would it have made a difference? - Florida Times-Union.
Iraq: The great cover-up - New Statesman.
Gore Vidal: The iron law of oligarchy prevails - Independent.
Errors by poll workers cost Bush and Gore more than 3,000 votes in Philadelphia - Philadelphia Inquirer.
Big brother is watching you: FBI put a keystroke-logging device on the computer of the gambling suspect - Philadelphia Inquirer.
Scandal scorecard: In the beginning there was Whitewater - New York Post.
America or Europe: The new right-wing order in Washington will force Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the dilemma he has so strained to avoid - The Guardian.
Police to get new powers on DNA testing - The Telegraph.
Tryanny Personified - Lew Rockwell.
ISPs 'RIP' Into British Police: A stream of "stupid questions" posed by technically callow police officers trying to enforce a controversial law are angering Britain's Internet service providers, who are threatening to move their businesses out of the country - Wired.
Miller sues government over Social Security requirement: Secretary of State Candice Miller filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the U.S. government over its requirement that Michigan residents give Social Security numbers to get or renew their driver's licenses - Detroit Free Press.
Jesse Jackson love child: Mistress paid in cash - DrudgeReport.
All the President's scandals: The White House is rushing to "wipe clean" the hard drives of computers used by President Clinton's aides before the Jan. 20 changeover - WorldNetDaily.
The power to make peace in the Middle East is not among those of a U.S. president: It's up to the Israelis and Palestinians - TIME.
Attorney General-Designate John Ashcroft: Unprincipled Attacks On A Man Of Principle - RNC.
Inclusive GOP shuts out base: Hasta la vista, baby - Chicago Sun-Times.
Physicians' group calls for universal health coverage - CNN.
US trade juggernaut dominates Australia - Australian News.
The Boobocracy: Dumb Blonde Democracy - Laissez Faire City Times.
William Raspberry: Post-Traumatic Suggestions, January 2001 - Washington Post
What Clinton should do his last month in office, January 2001 - Michael Moore
|
